Page 4 of 4

Re: Problem with "tank" PC

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 8:00 pm
by JackMann
I mean, again, we're lucky in this case in that we're talking to the GM, who gets to choose what enemies do, and not the player, who has no way to affect that in this rule system. Pretty much all the issues the tank player faces can be solved with a gentlemen's agreement that most enemies are going to attack them first. Yes, enemies can attack other characters. But there's nothing saying the GM can't attack the tanks much more often, and I say they should if that's how their players want to play.

Re: Problem with "tank" PC

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 11:07 pm
by Ilina_Young
Panzerkraft wrote:I don't think that pointing out that enemies can ignore the tanks is a valid criticism.
First of all, the PCs can still make decent damage.
But even if they were "turtles" the enemies would have to attack them after they have dealt with the other PCs. And those would find it unfair if the enemies were always to prioritize them.
In some situations there's no choice but to attack the tanks. For example in the fight in the 1st post the mercenaries were trying to kill or capturing the tanks because they were wanted. The other PCs were not present or were helping the mercenaries (it was a complicated situation).



after you eliminate the other PCs from the fight. it is easier to focus fire on the tanks. because there are less opponents fighting back against you. same reason it is better to eliminate enemy extras before you target the wild card leader. so you can eliminate the majority of the real danger and safely wipe out the tanks.

flails ignore shields, mauls and maces ignore plate. in fact, shields only protect from the front and like one side. so if you target a foe from behind with the blunt force of a mace, you can ignore their shield and bypass the benefit of their plate, likely with the drop. and against people with plate, it would make senses foes would use mauls and maces. or, the guys with the mauls and maces could try to sunder their shields and plate. sunder is always funsies. or if they were walking in a desert, a jungle, or a snowy mountain, you could force vigor checks at penalties because that plate is not insulated and the penalties would keep getting harsher as they walk further in the heat or cold.

Re: Problem with "tank" PC

Posted: Mon May 01, 2017 1:20 am
by Jounichi
Blunt weapons don't ignore plate armor, but they do bypass it somewhat. A war hammer can ignore one point of protection and a maul two. Whether that's better than a great axe's ability to ignore one point of armor universally I'm not entirely sure. I don't feel like doing the math right now, despite my insomnia. Sundering could help, but that's not available by RAW. Doesn't mean the GM can't implement it, but he should know exactly what you're referring to. Sunder works differently in different games.

As for armor subtracting from Fatigue rolls because it's not insulated, that depends. Early partial-plate (Ancient Greek & Roman) was worn largely by itself or over a tunic. Once you get to the medieval era you'd see it worn over chain mail and arming doublets. In any case, those are highly situational rules the GM likely hadn't considered before, and if he were to suddenly implement them then it can upset all of the players. It's best to be up front with all of that at the very beginning.

And you don't get The Drop for attacking someone from behind during combat unless you have an Edge which specifically lets you. It's not a surprise.

Re: Problem with "tank" PC

Posted: Mon May 01, 2017 3:22 am
by JackMann
Also, I disagree with the idea that it's unfair to target the tank PCs more than the other characters. It's what they want. That's why they made tank characters, so that enemies would try to attack them. They'll survive more readily than the other characters, while still always having a chance of getting ganked thanks to acing rolls.

This isn't to say that edges and abilities to help characters actually tank wouldn't be awesome! I like where the other thread is headed. I'm just saying, tanking can work if the GM works with the players.

Re: Problem with "tank" PC

Posted: Mon May 01, 2017 5:43 am
by Panzerkraft
Ilina_Young wrote:after you eliminate the other PCs from the fight. it is easier to focus fire on the tanks. because there are less opponents fighting back against you. same reason it is better to eliminate enemy extras before you target the wild card leader. so you can eliminate the majority of the real danger and safely wipe out the tanks.

flails ignore shields, mauls and maces ignore plate. in fact, shields only protect from the front and like one side. so if you target a foe from behind with the blunt force of a mace, you can ignore their shield and bypass the benefit of their plate, likely with the drop. and against people with plate, it would make senses foes would use mauls and maces. or, the guys with the mauls and maces could try to sunder their shields and plate. sunder is always funsies. or if they were walking in a desert, a jungle, or a snowy mountain, you could force vigor checks at penalties because that plate is not insulated and the penalties would keep getting harsher as they walk further in the heat or cold.


Does the shield works only to the front and one side ? That seems a way to make people forget about shields and going dual wield rapiers (does it works ? Or the bonus parry is just for the first rapier ?) And advantages for attacking from behind should be already considered in the Gang Up bonus, I believe.